About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
in the '90s with billi bill clinton. listen to what he says about the fiscal cliff? >> i think no deal is better than a bad deal. i think going off this cliff is less dangerous than letting things build up for a year or two. the president has staked out a position of nonseriousness, i think it's difficult for the house republicans right now to find any practical way to get his attention. >> he's saying go over the cliff rather than accept what the president wants right now. >> i don't need to remind you this is the house speaker who shut down the government and that didn't work so well for the republicans. going over the cliff is something i don't think they want to do earlier. as i keep saying, wolf. the irony to me here is that the larger issues are things they really understand how to resolve, if you look at all their proposals. they just can't get there, because they can't agree on this revenue issue. where does the revenue come from. do you raise the rates on the wealthy? if you do, how much? and that's actually in the whole realm of things a sticking point that one would presume
that rate to 39.6% where it was during the clinton administration. what else is in this new gop proposal? >> reporter: let's show you some of the savings when it comes to government spending. first of all, they put about $600 billion in what the republicans are calling health savings. we understand -- we don't have details. we understand much of that comes from medicare, things that we've heard from republicans over and over like raising the eligibility age, means testing, things like that. so then we have about $600 billion in essentially spending cuts, half from mandatory spending, half from discretionary spending. this is the other very interesting thing that's new. $200 billion from revising the consumer price index. that sounds very technical. but it has very real world consequences because it very much could affect the money, the checks that social security recipients in particular get every single month because it effectively changes inflation so it changes the formula from what they would get. >> significant differences between the white house proposal on this part of the equatio
very careful not to say we have to go up to the clinton-era 39.6%. he hasn't used that number. and so he's -- you know -- >> right now it's 35%. >> right now it's 35%. so if you look in the middle, okay, 37% is a real possibility. but here's the caveat. john boehner, the house speaker, cannot take a rate increase to his caucus unless it is accompanied by some signal of real entitlement cuts. something that they do now and give a down payment on for the future. i don't think you get -- could get rates through unless the president gave a little bit. and if you look at the document from the grand bargain back in july of 2011, the president was willing to give on that. so we'll have to see if they can get back to that. but again, has to be one significant item that they know they'll be able to build upon in the future. an item from both sides. >> neither side's going to be thrilled. but they've got to compromise. >> that's the way life usually works, doesn't it? >> certainly does. thank you. >>> meanwhile, huge announcement today on capitol hill. the conservative senator jim demint of sou
.6% rate of the clinton years? he did not. so is there a little give ultimately to sort of say what if it doesn't go up to 39.6%, but say 37%, is that something the white house would accept? also, this that same interview, the president raised the possibility, which is that after you do tax reform and you close loopholes and deductions, that if the rate is raised, the top rate, there's always a possibility that after you do tax reform, of course, the top rate would then go down again. so it was -- you have to listen to the president very carefully to see where there might be some give. the problem from my point of view is that everybody knows what's got to be done in the long-term. it's the question of the short-term deal. >> john boehner, speaker of the house, he came up with a proposal. but not all the conservatives in the house and the senate are on board. jim demint, republican senator from south carolina. >> this is a time to negotiate with ourselves. we need to invite the president to work with us. his proposal was so outlandish, i don't think we should go back to the table un
supporting same sex marriage, president clinton who signed defense of marriage act into law, he supports gay marriage, but the american public attitudes have changed. back in 2005, 35% thought same sex marriage should be recognized. now it is up to 53%. here is the question. do the justices, the nine justices, are they influenced by public opinion? >> you bet. they sure are. this is an issue that wouldn't even have been on the agenda had the public not changed so dramatically. let me just tell you a story from supreme court history. 1986, the first real significant gay rights case that the court ever had, the swing vote at the time was lewis powell. and he was in his chambers, said to his law clerk, you know, i don't think i ever met a homosexual. no justice would say that today. as it turned out, that law clerk himself was a gay man, although he didn't disclose it to the justice at the time. the world has changed so dramatically, the polls have changed. justice ruth ginsberg often talks about the reason she won as a lawyer all the women's rights cases in the 1970s is that the world had chan
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)